• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

House votes 61-1 against women in combat...

Status
Not open for further replies.

sonshine

PLC06 Applicant
No Women In Combat Passes House
Associated Press
May 19, 2005

WASHINGTON - Women in the military would be barred from serving in direct ground combat roles, under a House bill that sets Defense Department policy and spending plans for the upcoming budget year.

The House Armed Services Committee approved the overall measure early Thursday on a 61-1 vote. The same committee in the Senate passed a different version last week. The House and Senate are to vote on their respective bills next week.

President Bush requested $442 billion for defense for the budget year that begins Oct. 1, excluding money to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The House bill, like the Senate's version, envisions creating a $50 billion fund for the conflicts for next year - but provides no money for it.

The measure also calls for increasing the military by 10,000 Army soldiers and 1,000 Marines, boosting pay grades for uniformed personnel by 3.1 percent and permanently providing all Reserve and Guard members access to military health care services.


In a nearly 15-hourlong committee hearing, the most contentious issue was the role of women in combat.

The language would put into law a Pentagon policy from 1994 that prohibits female troops in all four service branches from serving in units below brigade level whose primary mission is direct ground combat.

"Many Americans feel that women in combat or combat support positions is not a bridge we want to cross at this point," said Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., who sponsored the amendment.

It also allows the Pentagon to further exclude women from units in other instances, while requiring defense officials to notify Congress when opening up positions to women. The amendment replaced narrower language in the bill that applied only to the Army and banned women from some combat support positions.

The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps currently operate under a 10-year-old policy that prohibits women from "direct combat on the ground" but allows the services discretion to open some jobs to women in combat as needed.

"We're not taking away a single prerogative that the services now have," McHugh said.

Democrats opposed the amendment, saying it would tie the hands of commanders who need flexibility during wartime. They accused Republicans of rushing through legislation without knowing the consequences or getting input from the military.

"We are changing the dynamic of what has been the policy of this country for the last 10 years," said Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark.

Added Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the committee's leading Democrat: "There seems to be a solution in search of a problem."


The issue arose last week, when Republicans, at the behest of Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., added a provision that would have banned women from being assigned to "forward support companies."

Those units provide infantry, armor and artillery units with equipment, ammunition, maintenance and other supplies in combat zones. The Army started allowing women to staff such support posts last year and says it is complying with the 1994 policy.

Some Republicans aren't so sure. "The Army is confused. They're all over the place on this one," Hunter said.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday the Army is working with Congress and battlefield commanders "to find an appropriate way that's consistent with our country's view on that subject."

He said the Army's attempt to reorganize and an asymmetrical front line on the battlefield muddies the issue.

Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., cast the lone dissenting vote on the overall bill.

I know this topic has already been debated on Airwarriors but I figured some might find the article interesting.
 

Punk

Sky Pig Wrangler
pilot
interesting

I like the part about the $50 billion fund but we got nowhere to get the money from

3.1% pay increase brings a smile though
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Brett327 said:
Don't smile too hard. That will just about keep you even with inflation. :D

Brett

Better deal than the 20+% pay cut I took in CIVPAC. For most "Os" keeping pace with inflation is good enough in light of the cost of war. On the other hand, we should see real increases in junior enlisted pay.
 
esday1 said:
The 61-1 vote (by the armed services committee, not the whole house) was for the whole defense authorization bill, not the provision about women in combat. That amendment itself passed by a 9-7 party-line vote in subcommittee... So, "house votes 61-1 against women in combat" is partly inaccurate, thanks to some sloppy writing by the AP.
I was wondering why they were debating for 15 hours if everyone already agreed...

Anyway, I like the outcome (no women in ground combat). I don't want to get in a debate over this, though. Just sharing my thoughts.
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
esday1 said:
So, "house votes 61-1 against women in combat" is partly inaccurate, thanks to some sloppy writing by the AP.

NO! That can't be! Sloppy reporting. Inaccurate stories. Oh wait, were we talking about CBS, Newsweek, the NYT or someone else?
 

sonshine

PLC06 Applicant

Cate

Pretty much invincible
bennett4362 said:
i did have the pleasure of voting against her this past november.
Hell, I was happy to vote against her, and we all know how conservative I'm not. That woman's crazier than a crackhouse rat. Honestly, when she's walking around downtown, crackhouse rats cross to the other side of the street and whisper, "Man, she's crazy."
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
How does this amendment change anything? There is already a ban on women in ground combat positions (Infantry, armor, special ops) and submarines. Why is this amendment needed, to me it is a waste of time. The reason Rep. Hunter put the original amendment in there was to close support positions in the Army's new Brigade structure to women. Wome already serve in these support functions but they are not organic to the combat element of a unit. In the Army's new brigade structure they would be organic. I agree with the military's current policy bu tthis really does not add up to me, sounds more like politics (from Congress, never! :eek: ).
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
While I'm no fan of women in combat arms, this resolution was retarded. It will end up confusing the assignment policy for combat service support units in direct support of combat arms units. If a comm unit is colocated with the grunts, are they in combat. Plus, infantry units have been taking females on raids to search female detainees. Will they still be able to do that? Our manpower situation is bad as it is. If we hamstring commanders for this, are we really helping combat effectiveness? If women can't be in direct support, does this mean men will have to deploy more? Everywhere is a combat zone in OIF--where CAN the women be? Like or not, we don't have enough butts to fill all our seats. If we need to reorganize after this conflict, lets look at that then, not change direction midstream.

If this bill doesn't affect current practice, then why are we doing it. If it does, don't change things. No one has proved current practices don't work.
 

saltpeter

Registered User
Hmmm. the Army wants to increase the ranks by 10,000 soldiers and is facing major recruiting woes and all the while Chairman Duncan wanted to deny women from forward support roles. Maybe I am too hip or because my parents were hippies, but I support your plight women - HOORAH! Foreign countries have proven the capabilites of women in combat, it's amazing that with all our freedoms, on some issues we're light years behind in our thinking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top